But since it was in the Classical Theravada section my response there wouldnt be in accordance with the rules, hence the new thread here

I think it is true that we can infer to a degree the nature of other existences by understanding those momentary states of mind that arise in this life and so I don't think it is wrong to emphasise this aspect. Bu I believe the Buddha taught the planes of existence with a view to the real nature of the world. I think accepting this doesn't have to make one terrified of future lives or hopeful of heavenly pleasures. I think it acts to force one more onto the present because one knows that life now - which is only seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, thinking etc - is no different from life in the past and it will be just like that in the future. It means one becomes intent on understanding this moment and how the factors of the dependent origination work their ways.

Specualtion about heaven and hells after death is just that, speculation. It leads one away from the present. Thinking of them as physical realms as well, i feel, leads one away from focusing on the true reality of them as mind states that are here. This was all Ajahn Buddhadasa was trying to do, get people to focus back on there here and now and stop speculating about the future (which isnt even ours anyway)

He wasnt the only one to say such things (of heaven and hell only being mind states)

As the The Supreme Patriarch of Thailand said

"His Holiness' view on Heaven and Hell ... His Holiness’ two books on heaven and hell are truly analytical view on the subject from a Buddhist point of view. As we are so familiar, in religious sphere, the concept of heaven and hell is a very prominent belief. In many cases, it becomes the goal of religious practice itself. On this very subject, His Holiness critically analyses that the very concept and belief of heaven and hell in Buddhism is a cultural influence of indigenous culture and belief. He states: (I quote) [b]‘the subject of cosmology appeared in Buddhism is clearly can be seen that it is not ‘Buddhist teaching’ at all but an ancient geography. The concept and belief about it was included in Buddhist Canon merely because of strong influence of popular belief of the time. Later Commentaries further explain about heaven and hell in a greater detail distant itself from the original teaching of the Buddha. If Buddhism teaches such belief on heaven and hell it would not be Buddhism at all but an ancient geography. Buddha wouldn’t be the Buddha who delivered the Noble Truth and ‘timeless’ message for mankind.’ (p. 1) (end of the quote) He then shows in his teaching that the concept of heaven and hell in Buddhism are in fact symbolic, representing the quality of mind and spirituality instead. One can be in heaven and hell in this very earth and life. No need to wait until one dies...*

clw_uk wrote: "What use can there be in speculating on heaven and hells after death, when all the work and attention needs to be here and now?"

Speculative or not it is already there for all to investigate and it is precisely here that one is given the opportunity to understand them a bit more. I do not see any reason why the notion of understanding hell or heaven cannot be discussion in whatever detail. Perhaps it is not of an interest to all practitioners but certainly there are some who want to understand them and yet capable of no attachment to them by moving towards the right path.

Dismissing or simply ignoring them by saying that it is of no help to one's understanding at present moment is unfruitful as Buddha taught Realms of Existence for a reason i.e. for people to investigate themselves, otherwise Buddha would not have mentioned them knowing everyone would start to quibble about them or perhaps to cause misunderstanding amongst themselves.

Each of us understand the "puzzle" differently and from different angles and there is no uniformity in how we understand or learn so if one's interest is to understand Buddhism via the "hell" route then so be it. Ultimately if one truly understand Buddha's teaching then one will get the puzzle solve.

Therefore, all questions must be investigated regardless whether it is here or there and if one does not ask then one will not learn.

I think one must also take note of the audience when discussing the subject matter. Discussing with rural folks that have low education about heaven and hell can be rather different from internet forum.

~Actively trying to destroy the Three Unwholesome Roots of Greed, Hatred and Ignorance~

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... tml#part-5"And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html"With regard to this, a wise person considers thus: 'If there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the break-up of the body, after death — will reappear in the good destination, the heavenly world. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable brahmans & contemplatives, this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the wise as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence. If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the wise here-&-now; and in that — with the break-up of the body, after death — he will reappear in the good destination, the heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by him, covers both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el248.html"Here, Seniya, someone develops the ox duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the ox habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the ox mind fully and unstintingly, he develops the ox behavior fully and unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of oxen. But if his view is such as this: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious like I shall become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,' that is wrong view in his case. Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say: hell or the animal womb. So, Seniya, if his ox duty is perfected, it will lead him to the company of oxen; if it is not, it will lead him to hell."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el248.html"Ananda, there are four kinds of persons existing in the world. What four?(i) "Here some person kills living beings, takes what is not given, misconducts himself in sexual desires, speaks falsehood, speaks maliciously, speaks harshly, gossips, is covetous, is ill-willed, and has wrong view.4 On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.(ii) "But here some person kills living beings... and has wrong view. On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.(iii) "Here some person abstains from killing living beings, from taking what is not given, from misconduct in sexual desires, from false speech, from malicious speech, from harsh speech, from gossip, he is not covetous, is not ill-willed, and has right view.5 On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.(iv) "But here some person abstains from killing living beings... and has right view. On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.

"Householders, it is by reason of conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of unrighteous conduct, that beings here on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. It is by reason of conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of righteous conduct, that some beings here on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el248.html"If a householder who observes conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, righteous conduct, should wish: 'Oh, that on the dissolution of the body, after death, I might reappear in the company of the gods of the Four Kings!' it is possible that on the dissolution of the body, after death, he may do so. Why is that? Because he observes conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, righteous conduct.

19. ...of the gods of the Realm of the Thirty-three...320. ...of the gods that have Gone to Bliss...21. ...of the Contented gods...22. ...of the gods that Delight in Creating...23. ...of the gods that Wield Power over others' Creations...24. ...of the gods of Brahma's Retinue...25. ...of the Radiant gods...26. ...of the gods of Limited Radiance...27. ...of the gods of Measureless Radiance...28. ...of the gods of Streaming Radiance...29. ...of the Glorious gods...30. ...of the gods of Limited Glory...31. ...of the gods of Measureless Glory...32. ...of the gods of Refulgent Glory...33. ...of the Very Fruitful gods...34. ...of the gods Bathed in their own Prosperity...35. ...of the Untormenting gods...36. ...of the Fair-to-see gods...37. ...of the Fair-seeing gods...38. ...of the gods who are Junior to None...39. ...of the gods of the base consisting of the infinity of space...40. ...of the gods of the base consisting of the infinity of consciousness...41. ...of the gods of the base consisting of nothingness...

42. "If a householder who observes conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, righteous conduct, should wish: 'Oh, that on the dissolution of the body, after death, I might reappear in the company of the gods of the base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception!' it is possible that, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he may do so. Why is that? Because he observes conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, righteous conduct.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html"Monks, the taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span.

"Stealing — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from stealing is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to the loss of one's wealth.

"Illicit sexual behavior — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from illicit sexual behavior is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to rivalry & revenge.

"Telling falsehoods — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from telling falsehoods is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to being falsely accused.

"Divisive tale-bearing — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from divisive tale-bearing is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to the breaking of one's friendships.

"Harsh speech — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from harsh speech is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to unappealing sounds.

"Frivolous chattering — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from frivolous chattering is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to words that aren't worth taking to heart.

"The drinking of fermented & distilled liquors — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from drinking fermented & distilled liquors is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to mental derangement."

There's more but I will stop here....and here's my try at the issue at hand:

I read the Buddha's words as it is and with all due respect to the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand and the late Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, there's enough of reference in the Pali Canon on 'realms' and without me dragging the Mahayana perspective in here, it is enough to show me that the Buddha had been consistent in what He has been teaching, whether or not anyone has seen these places personally, that's another issue, anymore than the time in human history, where certain things/technology were thought impossible, were made a reality today, mostly succeeding through keeping an open mind and working on things rather than spend pages/hours like the Pope and his minions during Galileo's time who was so dead sure that it was an imaginary thing that the earth went round the Sun.

Secondly, I have not found anywhere in the Pali Canon that I had encountered that whatever and whenever the Buddha speaks on other realms, it was designed to distract one's attention and create speculation. It was rather how He knew it through His own experience that is verifiable by His own realized disciples, that He mentioned those places for the benefit of all, not as some imaginary fairy tales, but in explaining the corresponding causes of one's actions now, today, in one's present life, reminding us of the superiority of Dhamma practice, in cessation of suffering, in plugging our rounds of rebirth, wherever that may have been now and today.

Thirdly, He further exemplified that Dhamma practice of His Teaching is meant for one's liberation and cessation from suffering and not for seeking spiritual materialism of either fear or hope/pleasure of 'Heaven to avoid Hell', paths of samsaric realms. But being the capable and benevolent Teacher that He is, He knows that there would be some of limited capacities and thus, He used those realms as examples of one's possible consequences in slacking or swaying away from one's Dhamma practice, now, in the present moment. If laziness or wishful thinking was on the minds of some, using it as a pseudo Dhamma to 'get away from it all', then it would have been a tall order to say that the Buddha encouraged such or that such Teaching was all an imaginary hodgepodge when it was a mere failure on a personal capacity to live up to the Teaching, as intended by the Buddha.

But then again, what do I know? I am not the Supremo of Thailand nor anywhere near a Bhikkhu's stature, when I read the Buddha's description of various realms of rebirth, I am nobody to define it as imaginary, metaphorical nor a distraction to one's current emphasis on the Dhamma or for that matter otherwise. I just read it as it is, as how He said and taught it. That's all I know. Of course, neither does He forces anyone to accept what He had taught. One can anytime walk out on their own volition but neither does that change His stand on what He had taught.

I read the Buddha's words as it is and with all due respect to the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand and the late Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, there's enough of reference in the Pali Canon on 'realms' and without me dragging the Mahayana perspective in here, it is enough to show me that the Buddha had been consistent in what He has been teaching, whether or not anyone has seen these places personally, that's another issue, anymore than the time in human history, where certain things/technology were thought impossible, were made a reality today, mostly succeeding through keeping an open mind and working on things rather than spend pages/hours like the Pope and his minions during Galileo's time who was so dead sure that it was an imaginary thing that the earth went round the Sun.

I dont deny realms, but they are mind-states not physical speculative places after death

Secondly, I have not found anywhere in the Pali Canon that I had encountered that whatever and whenever the Buddha speaks on other realms, it was designed to distract one's attention and create speculation. It was rather how He knew it through His own experience that is verifiable by His own realized disciples, that He mentioned those places for the benefit of all, not as some imaginary fairy tales, but in explaining the corresponding causes of one's actions now, today, in one's present life, reminding us of the superiority of Dhamma practice, in cessation of suffering, in plugging our rounds of rebirth, wherever that may have been now and today.

Your right he didnt teach in order to distract. Most people at the time and even today are stuck in speculative views and wouldnt necessarily be able to understand the Buddhas own teachings, he taught in accord with people abilities to understand, if they had a negative speculative view, he would point to one that was wholesome (reincarnation) out of compassion, if they could understand more he would point to this own noble teachings out of compassion again

To those stuck in speculative views he taught a way of having a relatively happy life, of having a wholesome and good life and of a way of having a good afterlife as well if there is one, in accord with their speculative wishes and understandings

"With regard to this, a wise person considers thus: 'If there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the break-up of the body, after death — will reappear in the good destination, the heavenly world. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable brahmans & contemplatives, this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the wise as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence. If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the wise here-&-now; and in that — with the break-up of the body, after death — he will reappear in the good destination, the heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by him, covers both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful.

Notice its all about if, so its a teaching on how to live a good life now, and if there is a life after death, a good life there to. However the Buddhas own noble teachings goes beyond all this

Thirdly, He further exemplified that Dhamma practice of His Teaching is meant for one's liberation and cessation from suffering and not for seeking spiritual materialism of either fear or hope/pleasure of 'Heaven to avoid Hell', paths of samsaric realms. But being the capable and benevolent Teacher that He is, He knows that there would be some of limited capacities and thus, He used those realms as examples of one's possible consequences in slacking or swaying away from one's Dhamma practice, now, in the present moment. If laziness or wishful thinking was on the minds of some, using it as a pseudo Dhamma to 'get away from it all', then it would have been a tall order to say that the Buddha encouraged such or that such Teaching was all an imaginary hodgepodge when it was a mere failure on a personal capacity to live up to the Teaching, as intended by the Buddha.

Of course the Buddha helped everyone he met to end suffering in some way, but not everyone he met would understand his own teachings that could end it completely, they were to stuck to their speculative views so the Buddha, being the genius that he was, taught them a life that would be wholesome and good to themselves and to others in line with that speculative view that they were stuck to (or even recomened a speculative view that is wholesome i.e. rebirth instead of the unwholesome speculative views of nihilism etc).

Those who could understand more he taught the 4NT which is about how all dukkha comes to be, including the dukkha of speculative views and how to end that dukkha, via seeing how these views come to be in the first place (of course the 4NT cover much more than speculative views)

He also made use of the speculative cosmology of the time in relation to the various negative and positive mind states the mind can go into via unwholesome and wholesome actions and the effect that can have both on the "person" and other people

Now of course thats not to say that dana and wholesome conduct is just for those with speculative views as they are conductive to the path (as well as being conductive to others)

Of course, neither does He forces anyone to accept what He had taught. One can anytime walk out on their own volition but neither does that change His stand on what He had taught.

No he doesnt, he didnt force people he met to give up speculative views, instead he taught in accord with their capacity to understand in light of their deeply held views, which is why it isnt wrong or evil to have (certain) speculative views, but the Buddhas own noble teachings shows the way out of them and out of all dukkha, they are beyond all speculative views and standpoints

Last edited by clw_uk on Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Speculative or not it is already there for all to investigate and it is precisely here that one is given the opportunity to understand them a bit more. I do not see any reason why the notion of understanding hell or heaven cannot be discussion in whatever detail. Perhaps it is not of an interest to all practitioners but certainly there are some who want to understand them and yet capable of no attachment to them by moving towards the right path.

The mind states are, but going into speculation about heaven and hell after death is, i feel, to attend unwisely

"And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to.

Snip

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

Which all speculation about heaven and hell, past or future, is about "will i be in future/was in past?"

Each of us understand the "puzzle" differently and from different angles and there is no uniformity in how we understand or learn so if one's interest is to understand Buddhism via the "hell" route then so be it. Ultimately if one truly understand Buddha's teaching then one will get the puzzle solve.

I agree, we all have different understandings

Therefore, all questions must be investigated regardless whether it is here or there and if one does not ask then one will not learn.

clw_uk wrote:"With regard to this, a wise person considers thus: 'If there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the break-up of the body, after death — will reappear in the good destination, the heavenly world. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable brahmans & contemplatives, this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the wise as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence. If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the wise here-&-now; and in that — with the break-up of the body, after death — he will reappear in the good destination, the heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by him, covers both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful.

Notice its all about if,

It isn’t all about if, for the passage continues:

“Since there actually is another world, one who holds the view ‘there is another world’ has right view. Since there actually is another world, one who intends ‘there is another world’ has right intention. Since there actually is another world, one who makes the statement ‘there is another world’ has right speech. Since there actually is another world, one who says ‘there is another world’ is not opposed to those arahants who know the other world. Since there actually is another world, one who convinces another ‘there is another world’ convinces him to accept true Dhamma; and because he convinces another to accept true Dhamma, he does not praise himself and disparage others. Thus any corrupt conduct that he formerly had is abandoned and pure virtue is substituted. And this right view, right intention, right speech, non-opposition to noble ones, convincing another to accept true Dhamma, and avoidance of self-praise and disparagement of others - these several wholesome states thus come into being with right view as their condition.”

...and this thought arose in the mind of the Blessed One:“Who lives without reverence lives miserably.”— Uruvela Sutta, A.ii.20

It were endless to dispute upon everything that is disputable.— William Penn Some Fruits of Solitude,

This is an interesting sutta and i tend to agree with something Thanissaro Bhikkhu has mentioned

The safe-bet arguments in the first part of the sutta follow two patterns. The first pattern covers controversies over whether there is a life after death, whether actions bear results, and whether there is a causal connection between one's actions and one's experience of pleasure and pain. The pattern here is as follows:

A: a statement of the anti-Dhamma position; B: a rejection of the anti-Dhamma position; A1: a pragmatic argument against holding to A — a person who does so is likely to act, speak, and think in unskillful ways; A2: further unfortunate consequences that follow from holding to A, given that A is wrong; A3: further unfortunate consequences that come from holding to A whether or not it is right; B1: a pragmatic argument for holding to B — a person who does so is likely to act, speak, and think in skillful ways; B2: further fortunate consequences that follow from holding to B, given that B is right; B3: further fortunate consequences that come from holding to B whether or not it is right.

It is noteworthy that the arguments in A2 and B2 are not safe-bet arguments, for they assume that A is wrong and B is right. Whether these arguments date from the Buddha or were added at a later date, no one knows.

Unfortunately for me it is hence I would prefer to find out myself either by experiencing them or by trying to understand all points presented or at least keep them in mind for later digestion.

So all questions are opportunities for me to fill the gaps and to learn from.

Thats fine, just please, for your own welfare, be aware of those questions that are unwise and lead to the taints (and so dukkha)

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

This is an interesting sutta and i tend to agree with something Thanissaro Bhikkhu has mentioned

The safe-bet arguments in the first part of the sutta follow two patterns. The first pattern covers controversies over whether there is a life after death, whether actions bear results, and whether there is a causal connection between one's actions and one's experience of pleasure and pain. The pattern here is as follows:

A: a statement of the anti-Dhamma position; B: a rejection of the anti-Dhamma position; A1: a pragmatic argument against holding to A — a person who does so is likely to act, speak, and think in unskillful ways; A2: further unfortunate consequences that follow from holding to A, given that A is wrong; A3: further unfortunate consequences that come from holding to A whether or not it is right; B1: a pragmatic argument for holding to B — a person who does so is likely to act, speak, and think in skillful ways; B2: further fortunate consequences that follow from holding to B, given that B is right; B3: further fortunate consequences that come from holding to B whether or not it is right.

It is noteworthy that the arguments in A2 and B2 are not safe-bet arguments, for they assume that A is wrong and B is right. Whether these arguments date from the Buddha or were added at a later date, no one knows.

A,B and A1, A2 being in relation to the rebirth segment

Metta

(NOTE: I am explaining in general and NOT pointing at the author or anyone on this forum)

Somehow my gut feeling tells me there is something amiss in the above analogy as I am not sure if it is simply to analyse logic for logic sake or something else. Really I am confused and am not trying to make sarcastic remarks of any sort.

If one is anti-dhamma then one is anti-dhamma so why try to manipulate the argument for the sake of "winning" an argument? That is simply obvious is it not?

~Actively trying to destroy the Three Unwholesome Roots of Greed, Hatred and Ignorance~

clw_uk wrote:Thats fine, just please, for your own welfare, be aware of those questions that are unwise and lead to the taints (and so dukkha)

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

Thanks for the reference and yes I guess one should always be mindful of not trying to get attach to them to the point of "intoxicating one's mind".

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.

Apologies but I have not read through the detail of this thread. However a skim of your opening post brought to mind one of my favourite quotes around this topic:

Allow me to post it for the first time ? on Dhamma Wheel:

Only practice can resolve doubt

When people asked Luang Pu about death and rebirth, or about past and future lives, he was never interested in answering. Or if some people argued that they didn't believe that heaven or hell really existed, he never tried to reason with them or to cite evidence to defeat their arguments. Instead, he'd give them this piece of advice:"People who practice the Dhamma don't have to give any thought to past or future lives, or to heaven or hell. All they have to do is be firm and intent on practicing correctly in line with the principles of virtue, concentration, and discernment. If there really are 16 levels of heaven as they say in the texts, people who practice well are sure to rise to those levels. Or if heaven and nibbana don't exist, people who practice well don't lack for benefits here and now. They're sure to be happy, as human beings on a high level.

"Listening to what other people say, looking things up in the texts, can't resolve your doubts. You have to put effort into the practice to give rise to clear insight knowledge. That's when doubt will be totally resolved on its own."

I have found a keep your feet on the ground, common sense approach to Dhamma practice helpful in my own life as well - but I also understand that is just my own view and perspectives vary. Still, I have always appreciated Ajaan Dune Atulo's good advice and perhaps you may find some relevance in it too perhaps.

"People who practice the Dhamma don't have to give any thought to past or future lives, or to heaven or hell. All they have to do is be firm and intent on practicing correctly in line with the principles of virtue, concentration, and discernment.